Disability Discrimination: Nurse Taking Depression Medication Not Disabled, Court Says

Click here to request a complimentary copy of our current issue.

Disability Discrimination: Nurse Taking Depression Medication Not Disabled, Court Says

Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter for the Nursing Profession

Quick Summary: Depression under control with medication is not a disability. With it not under control, the nurse would not qualified for her job, although disabled. It is a "Catch 22."

   The Americans With Disabilities Act says an employer cannot discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability.

   A disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

   A qualified individual with a disability is a person who can, with or without reasonable accommodation, perform the essential functions of the job.

Discrimination can include not making reasonable accommodation. By definition, reasonable accommodation does not impose an undue hardship or expense on the employer. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MINNESOTA, 1997.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota had to decide if a nurse taking medication which controlled her depressive illness fairly well, but who was let go from a probationary clinical nurse specialist position for poor job performance, fit the legal profile of a victim of disability discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court, other Federal courts and state courts are all using the same test to see if an individual claiming to be a victim of disability discrimination can sue an employer or former employer, this court said.

First, does the person have a disability, as the word "disability" is defined for purposes of employment discrimination law?

Second, was the person qualified for the position? Reasonable accommodation to modify the position can be an issue.

Lastly, was there discrimination in hiring, advancement, discharge or other terms and conditions of employment? Discrimination can be outright refusal to hire or promote a qualified individual with a disability, or the failure to make reasonable accommodation.

If one critical element of a disability discrimination case is missing, the court must dismiss the case, even if the other elements of a valid case are present.

The court ruled that when this nurse’s depressive illness was under control she was not disabled. But even if she was disabled, her poor job performance meant she was not a qualified individual with a disability, which would also be sufficient grounds for turning down her lawsuit. It is also true that accepting unacceptable performance is not reasonable accommodation, the court pointed out, looking at the issues from that perspective.

This "Catch-22" situation, familiar to those who watch these cases, is knocking down a lot of healthcare employment disability discrimination cases these days.

In this case the hospital administration accommodated this nurse’s unsatisfactory performance for a while. She was not terminated when she went into the hospital, she was allowed to work a reduced schedule and her supervisors worked closely with her to iron out what was and was not expected of her. When she was on the job but not performing acceptably, even if she was disabled, she was not qualified for her job. The court examined the employer’s concerns with this nurse’s performance and ruled these concerns were not a smokescreen for discrimination.

The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has extensive guidelines on what conditions are and are not to be deemed disabilities under the law. In fact it has a guideline that a person receiving medication for mental illness is considered disabled. However, this court pointed out the courts are tending to disregard this particular EEOC guideline as invalid in cases where a person’s mental illness is being controlled by medication, that is to say, that person is not disabled.

In the end, however, the court ruled there was no unlawful discrimination against this nurse when she was let go. Although the court may have had more than one leg to stand on, it decided this nurse was not disabled, under the legal definition of disability. That in itself was enough. Wilking v. County, 983 F. Supp. 848 (D. Minn., 1997).